World Evangelistic Ent. Corp. v. Tracy

Decision Date29 June 1994
Docket NumberNo. 3100,3100
CitationWorld Evangelistic Ent. Corp. v. Tracy, 644 N.E.2d 678, 96 Ohio App.3d 78 (Ohio App. 1994)
PartiesWORLD EVANGELISTIC ENTERPRISE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. TRACY, Tax Commr., Appellee. *
CourtOhio Court of Appeals

Daniel C. Harkins, Springfield, for appellant.

Lee I. Fisher, Atty. Gen., Richard Farrin and Janyce C. Katz, Asst. Attys. Gen., Taxation Section, Columbus, for appellee.

GRADY, Presiding Judge.

World Evangelistic Enterprise Corporation ("WEEC") appeals the decision of the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals, affirming the Tax Commissioner's refusal to grant a real property tax exemption for the land on which WEEC's broadcasting facility is located.

WEEC is a nonprofit corporation that was organized in 1961 for the purpose of operating a Christian radio station to propagate the gospel in a non-denominational manner. WEEC has adopted a Statement of Faith, which provides, inter alia, that the Old and New Testaments were inspired by God, that Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior, and that eternal life exists for believers.

WEEC presently operates a noncommercial radio station devoted to religious programming, supported by listener donations and contributions of churches and radio program producers. WEEC's religious programming includes a Sunday morning worship service from a church in Chicago, inspirational music, devotional prayers, youth programs with biblical and spiritual themes, Bible teaching programs, call-in programs, and activity announcements. WEEC is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission and broadcasts the news and public affairs information required by the FCC.

In 1969, WEEC was granted a real property tax exemption for the two acres of land in German Township, Clark County, on which its broadcasting facilities are located. In 1989, WEEC purchased approximately 7.264 acres of land across the road from its current location to construct new offices and a new broadcasting studio and radio transmission tower. At present, a radio transmission tower, a transformer building, and a storage building have been constructed on the site. This new location is currently being used by WEEC to broadcast its programs.

In 1989, WEEC filed an application for a tax exemption for the newly purchased land. The Tax Commissioner found that this property was not entitled to an exemption and denied WEEC's application. WEEC appealed this denial to the Board of Tax Appeals. After a hearing, the Board of Tax Appeals held that the broadcasting facility was not used as a "house of public worship" and that WEEC was not entitled to a tax exemption on that basis. The board affirmed the Tax Commissioner.

WEEC has filed a timely notice of appeal of the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals and now presents two propositions of law in support of this appeal, which we will construe as assignments of error.

The first proposition of law states:

"A not-for-profit corporation whose stated purpose is to propagate the gospel and which accomplishes its purpose through the operation of a non-commercial radio station that is dedicated to the broadcast of Christian programming is a church."

The second proposition of law states:

"Radio broadcasting facilities which are used exclusively by a church to propagate the gospel and which are not used with a view for profit constitute a public house of worship that is exempt under the real property tax pursuant to Section 5709.07(A)(2) of the Ohio Revised Code."

Initially, we note that when reviewing decisions of the Board of Tax Appeals we are confined to our statutorily delineated duty of determining whether the board's decision is "reasonable and lawful." R.C. 5717.04. Episcopal Parish v. Kinney (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 199, 201, 12 O.O.3d 197, 198, 389 N.E.2d 847, 848.

Under its first proposition of law, WEEC argues that it is a church with a congregation that consists of the listeners who rely on WEEC for spiritual guidance. However, whether WEEC is or is not a "church" in that sense does not determine the availability of the tax exemption it seeks to have. The exemption which WEEC seeks is for "houses used exclusively for public worship," as that term is used in R.C. 5709.07. That statute provides, in pertinent part:

"(A) The following property shall be exempt from taxation:

" * * *

"(2) Houses used exclusively for public worship, the books and furniture in them, and the ground attached to them that is not leased or otherwise used with a view to profit and that is necessary for their proper occupancy, use, and enjoyment[.]" (Emphasis supplied.)

WEEC argues that its radio broadcasting facilities, which are used exclusively to propagate a religious gospel, constitute a house "used exclusively for public worship" and are, therefore, exempt from taxation pursuant to R.C. 5709.07(A)(2). WEEC claims that, in addition to its radio broadcasts that encourage and cause public worship, its facilities are used to coordinate other religious activities, such as pastoral counseling, foreign missionary efforts, and off-site religious services.

"For the purposes of R.C. 5709.07, 'public worship' means the open and free celebration or observance of the rites and ordinances of a religious organization." Faith Fellowship Ministries v. Limbach (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 432, 513 N.E.2d 1340, paragraph one of the syllabus. The exemption allowed pursuant to R.C. 5709.07(A)(2) is for property used primarily to facilitate such celebrations or observances. Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus.

The concept of a "house used exclusively for public worship," as it appears in R.C. 5709.07(A)(2), has its origin in Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution of Ohio, which concerns tax rate limitations and exemptions. That section provides, inter alia:

"Without limiting the general power, subject to the provisions of Article I of this constitution, to determine the subjects and methods of taxation or exemptions therefrom, general laws may be passed to exempt burying grounds, public school houses, houses used exclusively for public worship, institutions used exclusively for charitable purposes, and public property used exclusively for any public purpose, but all such laws shall be subject to alteration or repeal; and the value of all property so exempted shall, from time to time, be ascertained and published as may be directed by law." (Emphasis supplied.)

Article I of the Ohio...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
1 cases
  • Christian Voice of Cent. Ohio v. Testa
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • April 14, 2016
    ...The BTA issued its decision on August 22, 2014. The BTA acknowledged Christian Voice's reliance on World Evangelistic Ent. Corp. v. Tracy, 96 Ohio App.3d 78, 644 N.E.2d 678 (2d Dist.1994), but distinguished that case as involving a station that was supported fully by donations without “adve......